Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25756
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100322 OF 2026 (439(2) OF Cr.PC/483(3) OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI YOGESH DESAI S/O. MANOHAR DESAI, OCC: ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.930, 16TH MAIN, 19TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST. BANGALORE-65.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUNASHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI KATRAIAH B. PRASADIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ALWANDI P.S., REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.
2. SRI RAGHAVENDRA DESAI S/O. MANOHAR DESAI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KAVALOOR VILLAGE, TALUK & DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583231.
Digitally signed by PRATIBHA M PATIL …RESPONDENTS Location: High (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
Court of Kar nataka, Dharwad Bench SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI AND SRI ARUNKUMAR M. MAGADI, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (U/S.483(3) OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND CANCEL THE BAIL AND SET ASIDE THE BAIL GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.2 BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31ST DECEMBER 2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL IN S.C.NO.67/2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.307, 302, 109 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25, 27 (2)(3) 30 OF ARMS ACT ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.89/2022 OF ALWONDI P.S.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioner/complainant, questioning the legality and propriety of the order of bail granted by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal dated 31.12.2025 in SC No.67/2022, wherein respondent No.2/accused No.1 is facing offences under Sections 307, 302 and 109 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25, 27(2)(3) and 30 of Arms Act.
2. It is the brief case of prosecution that the petitioner/complainant, respondent No.2/accused No.1 and the deceased are children of Manohar Desai and are own brothers. There is dispute with regard to immovable properties. It is alleged that respondent No.2/accused No.1 in order to usurp the entire property, hatched a plan to eliminate his own brothers and took out a rifle, which is in his brothers’ name and shot at the complainant; however, the complainant survived, but the bullet was fired at the right side of the neck of the deceased. He also assaulted him with a chopper on the hind portion of his head. The complainant fell on the ground unconscious. Due to the bullet fired from the rifle, the deceased died; therefore, as explained in detail in the complaint, a crime is registered for the offences stated above.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials made available to this Court at this stage.
4. Learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to accused No.1 on 31.12.2025. Sri. Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petition is filed questioning the legality and propriety of the order of bail granted to respondent No.2/accused No.1, as there are no reasons to grant bail to accused No.1 considering the gravity of the offences alleged. Further submitted that this Court previously, on two occasions, rejected the bail petitions of accused No.1 considering the seriousness and gravity involved in the case, but the learned Sessions Judge, on the guise of medical reasons has granted bail to respondent No.2/accused No.1 without any reasons.
5. The medical reasons stated are that respondent No.2/accused No.1 is suffering from diabetes and blood pressure, which are common ailments and these can be treated in jail itself and are not grounds for granting bail to respondent No.2/accused No.1. Hence, submitted that the bail granted to respondent No.2/accused No.1 is against the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. Further submitted that learned Sessions Judge has observed in the order at Paragraph No.12 that though on merits of the case, accused No.1 has not made out any ground to grant bail, the grounds for bail are only confined to medical condition. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge is having consciousness about the gravity of the offences committed by respondent No.2/accused No.1 and opined that accused No.1 is not entitled on merits, but has granted bail on medical grounds, that too without there being any cogent medical reasons and granted bail. Therefore, submitted that the order of granting bail is illegal and unjustified; hence, questioning the legality and propriety of the order of granting bail, the present petition is filed.
7. Further submitted that this petition is not filed for cancellation of bail on the reason of non-violation of conditions of bail, but at the very threshold questioning the legality and propriety the order of grant of bail, the instant petition is filed. Further submitted that when respondent No.2/accused No.1 is taking contention that he is suffering from ailments, then it is his burden to prove that on medical grounds he is entitled for bail, but respondent No.2/accused No.1 has not produced any material to show that he is suffering from serious ailments and that the treatment is not available at the sub-jail and granted bail, but in this regard, ther
